Europe’s ruling elite has allowed the migration of millions of people from Muslim countries with a totally different culture, but was not able to learn from their own mistakes, or at least do an inventory. So Europe is beginning to crumble, and politicians still don’t understand what people want is not words but actions. This is evidenced by a former employee of several special police of the Czech Republic and expert on Eastern Europe and Middle East Michal Vagal, who has long lived in Kazakhstan.
Regarding terrorist act in St.-Petersburg Vagal said performers are likely to be Muslims from the Caucasus, associated with ISIS (banned in Russia — approx. ed.).
— Parlamentní listy: is it Possible, based on your experience, to successfully integrate Muslims into European society with people of different culture, customs and religion?
— Michal Vagal: I Think in a sense this is possible because every person adapts to the environment in which we live. However, it is impossible to tell how successful this adaptation — only time will tell. And, Yes, there will be huge problems that Europe will have to overcome, because to return to the position it was in before the migration waves will not succeed. “Defined processes” is already running.
I want to note that in speaking about Muslims, we should not generalize. I spent several years in a Muslim country, where peacefully coexist Muslims, Jews, Orthodox, and where there are no problems. So the problem I rather see in the choice of EU countries where migrants in the impact of religion and social maturity of these countries.
— Just what the media reported terrorist attack in St. Petersburg. Most analysts are inclined to think that it was an action of Muslim radicals from the Caucasus — Chechens or Ingush. In the end, these terrorist groups in the past have already made several terrorist attacks in Russia. All those Muslims who were killed not only in Russia, but, as a week ago, in the UK, for a long time lived among his victims. Such is hardly evidence of their integration, or at least attempts to integrate, isn’t it?
— To attribute the responsibility for the current terrorist attack in St. Petersburg of a particular group is not serious, because there is no sufficient information. It is highly likely that the terrorist act are the Transcaucasian radical groups, because they have made similar before. But I am against generalizations and comparisons of the situation in Russia with the situation in Europe.
The Muslim community in modern Russia has existed for centuries, and in the past it was carried out against a few not-too-successful military operations that led to the complete breakdown of relations between the people and the government. Since these grievances are quite fresh, and the consequences in the form of extremism effect so far. It is also proved that different groups receive support from abroad, and this continues in varying degrees until now. Unlike Europe, in Russia, the attacks were committed mostly private citizens who possessed ideas in the spirit of “Islamic state”. For example, it is the desire to create an Emirate on the territory of the republics of Transcaucasia. Often these people are socially not fit and come from a criminal environment. For example, few people know that during the war in Chechnya on the side of different groups fought a lot of mercenaries from different countries, including the European(!). In Chechnya, new arranged under the leadership of Ramzan Kadyrov, the conflicts have been minimized. Thus, in Russia we are not talking about imported terrorists, but about domestic. The power structures of the Russian Federation especially did not stand on ceremony with such people, and for most criminals meeting with intelligence agencies, and ends in death.
— That is, until it is impossible to specify who was behind the attacks in the second capital of Russia, as St. Petersburg was talking Gogol? (SIC — approx. transl.)
Now all speculation is pure speculation, although it begs them enough, and the readers they would be interesting. Let’s wait and see who will brag about this atrocity, and if I can find out FSB.
— A few days ago in London there was another terrorist act that claimed the lives of four people. There were many wounded. Aren’t you surprised by the fact that the attack was carried out in the heart of London, where the offender even tried to break the British Parliament?
— No, not surprised. From the point of view of propaganda and the subsequent publicity in the media, the offender could not choose a better place. On the other hand, he chose a place where the maximum concentration of armed police, but had with him only a knife, so the attempt was doomed to failure. Terrorist very quickly eliminated. If he decided to attack in a place where there would be fewer police officers and more ordinary people, the casualties probably would have been much more.
But, according to some experts in the field of security and historians, politicians often become the objects of attacks during the wars. For example, the attempt of the Czechoslovak resistance movement to the head of the German occupation in the Czech Republic Reinhard Heydrich or similar operation by the Polish resistance against high-ranking German occupiers. I remind you that ISIS, according to its representatives, is waging against our civilization Holy war. Do you agree that the politicians were more reasonable goal than the innocent ordinary people?
— If we consider the situation from the point of view of ISIS, Yes, the elimination of a senior representative of a country “evil” is a legitimate goal. But compared the attempt on Heydrich with the actions of ISIS is completely unacceptable and offensive due to the historical context of the events. To justify the death of a man, whatever he was doing, is absolutely unacceptable.
— Military analyst Yaroslav Stevec said that “the attack on the British Parliament in London, which lends itself to Islamization, is a clear message to Muslims that they abandoned the British tradition, because “the hour has struck”. In addition, the attack is a message to those Muslims who live in Europe, whether they are descendants of immigrants or immigrants of the last wave, which with the greater weight falls on our continent that they by all means continued to destroy the European cultural and democratic traditions”. What do you think about this interpretation of the terrorist attack in London?
— I don’t think that it was a terrorist attack in London is a kind of message, and think the given statement is extremely unfortunate and unfounded. Such statements only reinforce the hysteria in European society. First, while the attack looks like a crime of radical. The man did not leave message, unknown motives, and is still not established, participated in the attack someone else. And while ISIS has claimed responsibility, there’s probably did not know about the planned attack, but merely took advantage of the situation for propaganda purposes. If the attack in London was a message, you have to wonder, what was the previous terrorist acts in France, Belgium, Germany, the number of victims and scale far exceed the London terrorist attack.
London heads the Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan. Because of the attack he became the object of criticism, as did an official statement just an hour and a half after Scotland Yard announced the first victims. And his words were the critics don’t like. He said: “Today in London there was a terrible terrorist act. I want to assure all of you that worry is unnecessary. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.” After Khan also made a few traditional phrases about the residents of the city, face to face with the danger, of course, will not surrender and will not allow to ruin your life. The same words we often hear after the terrorist acts from the lips of prominent politicians. Is it right, or in such cases politicians would speak otherwise? If so, how?
That is a question for PR agencies. Any statement from those that we hear after every terrorist attack, just empty talk that will not change anything and return anything back. Unfortunately, politicians don’t understand that people don’t want to hear — they want to see. To see concrete steps to remedy the situation.
Many European countries have faced terrorism (Germany, Russia, France, Italy, Spain and others). And if you go back to the recent past, it becomes clear: each time after the attacks, the affected countries reacted to the situation. For example, after the terrorist attack on the Olympics in Munich in Germany created a special anti-terrorist unit GSG 9. And these countries have accumulated rich experience, which they can use. The attacks of the 70-ies and 80-ies was as tough as modern. The only difference between them is that before people learned about the incident immediately, but now follow online. The problem was mainly affected state, and other countries learned from this experience and adapted it to their strategies in the field of security. In Europe today this is impossible, because views on the situation vary, European politicians take the minimum liability, and some States little opportunity to take effective measures on its territory.
On the other hand, the opponents of Islam and immigration are expressed differently. The head of the Freedom party of Geert Wilders wrote on Twitter: “Today in London and tomorrow in the Netherlands, because cowards like Prime Minister Rutte, do not dare to name the main cause of terrorist attacks Islam. Political responsibility for terrorist acts are weak the leaders of the member countries of the European Union. They ignore Islam as the root cause of the attacks and allow new Muslims to remain in their own countries.” What do you think, are way out of the crisis restrictions for those who preach Islam in European countries, and, for example, strict control over them? And it would not be possible, it is better to concentrate attention on certain radical individuals and groups?
— To place responsibility for terrorism on Islam is very dangerous, because most Muslims are not radical, and similar ideas expressed in the name of political objectives in the struggle for power in the individual States. The problem is that Europe’s ruling elite has allowed the migration of millions of people from Muslim countries with a totally different culture. Look for reasons why it happened, makes no sense, because the deed is already done and need to deal with the consequences, and most importantly, to put an end to this process, that the situation has not deteriorated.
The solution here is simple: we must close the borders of the European Union to create centers for refugees in third countries or on Islands, to introduce a thorough check of the people in those centres and all those who have already entered the territory of the EU. And for this it is necessary to enact appropriate legislation on deportation. It seems pretty simple? Unfortunately, it is not, because the EU proves to us every day: to find a consensus very difficult. The reluctance of the “culprits” to admit their mistakes amplified, and the EU project is slowly but surely begins to break down. By taking these measures, the EU would find out who came on his territory, and would have revealed a risk. They need to monitor without any reservations. And if someone thinks that this will be easy and without conflict, he is very wrong.
— In the debate often heard about the term political correctness. President Milos Zeman calls it “a polite synonym for lies.” He said: “Almost no one dares to say “Islamic terrorism” — all speak of “international terrorism”. It is politically correct”. And what about political correctness do you think?
— I think the President said quite accurately. I don’t think that may have something to add to it.
— Last year British citizens supported Brakcet, that is, the country’s withdrawal from the European Union. One of the main arguments of the supporters of Brexia was the threat of terrorism, the immigration crisis, and that immigrants, primarily from Poland, to take British jobs.
— It’s hard for me to judge. Actually, I can say that the behavior of the EU since the beginning of the so-called waves of migration only reinforced the arguments that you have listed. Why the UK has decided to again become an independent and strong country, despite the price you have to pay. The problem of employment of foreigners, in my opinion, has not had much impact on the decision to Breccia, because the UK is a very multicultural country.
After the referendum, the media often report attacks on foreigners in the UK. Often victims of attacks become poles. However, the greatest impact in the Czech media was the murder in London of Czech. How, in your opinion, now safe for Czech tourists? Are they speaking in a language similar to Polish, to become victims of attacks by local residents, who against all the “Polish plumbers”, allegedly depriving them of work?
— I think that this media history of the European Union too inflated and used against Britain. I think you are going to be robbed in Prague, than you will become a victim of the radicals who are unhappy with the “Polish plumbers”. Once again, this story is too inflated.
In connection with such cities as London, Paris, Brussels and others, talking about the so-called forbidden zones, which are home not integrated immigrants. There is a thriving crime, and often these areas become a hotbed of radicals who commit terrorist acts. Thus, in the case of the London areas of Waltham forest, Whitechapel and tower Hamlets. In other cities it’s Blackburn in Birmingham and Bradford. Extensive Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Dewsbury, Leicester, Luton and Manchester. Earlier also there were reports that these areas of law meet patrols of Sharia. What information do you have?
— Formation of any “forbidden zones” is the failure of the state apparatus, and people would openly resent such things. If there is a place where people are afraid to go, and where to “not dare” to walk even police, someone should be held accountable. Whether the local police or other security services. Thus, people should put pressure on the state apparatus that this place has restored law and order, despite the problems that will cause this interference.
The democratic system of elections, independent media are an effective tool to control the work of any public body. But it all depends on the activity of citizens and their willingness to engage in public life, even directly the problem or concern.
— On the Internet you can find lots of instructions on how to behave during a terrorist act. And how you — as an expert in the field of security — would recommend to save your life in a situation of imminent danger if, for example, in a cafe or club, as happened in Paris, rush armed people and open fire?
— Every attack has its own specifics, depending on the place, time and identity of the perpetrator. It is foolish to claim that if you do not do so-and then all will be well. In a club or a disco with a weapon you tonight let no one, therefore, the need to defend itself there from an armed criminal or criminals practically impossible. In addition, among my friends there are few who would be going to a disco or to another social event, studied the plan of the building to know where in case of an attack run, and even at the ward checked out, not covering the fire exit (and it has happened on several fires).
Many people survived, previewsize killed. This, of course, a good trick, but what if the criminal decides to shoot it, not in a hurry, because he knows that in this world his days are numbered. To run the risk of being shot or lying and bluffing? To survive in such a terrorist attack — just a matter of luck, your fate does not depend on whether you trained the behavior in crisis situations or not. Many experts write that it is impossible to resist. I don’t agree. Of course, if you resist, with an absolute guarantee will be killed. But the question is, will not save you your resistance is the life of someone else. As example, the “arrow” of uherské hradiště. A few people because of thrown into a chair unable to escape and avoid certain death. So it only depends on us how to dispose of the most valuable that we have to “sell” or “give” their lives.
— What do you think about the gun law, which was approved by the European Parliament, and according to which will toughen control over small arms? (The new rule will impose General rules for the labeling and storage of weapons, will unite the base of the EU countries with the data on the denial of permission for weapons and forbidden to acquire certain types of self-loading semi-automatic weapons created on the basis of military types of automatic weapons: guns magazine with 10 bullets or more guns, with shops in 20 rounds or more and shotguns with folding or telescopic butt.) Will this law in the fight against terrorism?
— No restrictions on the legal gun ownership will not solve the problem. Statistics clearly confirms that none of the attacks were not committed with legally acquired weapons. Limitations on the number of cartridges in the store and so on — perfect stuff invented people, very far from reality. Restrictions on the carrying of weapons will only lead to a sharp increase in the black market, which in the Czech Republic has been somewhat reduced through efficient weapons amnesties.
With restrictions on weapons is closely related to the situation in Ukraine, where, pardon the expression, going such a mess that nobody has the slightest idea how, where and what weapon is drawn there. So that Ukraine is able to provide the illegal market of the EU weapons for many years to come.
Our laws about carrying weapons are among the most strict, and I don’t think they need to change. Actually gun ownership has a long history. We have developed a hunting business, and different disciplines of shooting sports in which our athletes have achieved international success. In addition, an armed citizen can be an unpleasant surprise for those who decided to organize a terrorist attack in his presence.
